Pages

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

In
the blogosphere, there has been much discussion about religion and ethics.
These observations have been made:

Filipinos observe a variety
of religions, with Roman Catholics (81%) being in the majority followed by
Protestants (6%) and Muslims (5%).

Despite the religiosity of
the Filipino, with 92% professing belief in a higher power, there is
widespread unethical behavior. The Philippines has a ranking of 129
in the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International.

Ethical behavior may not
necessarily arise from religiosity but from spirituality.

Spirituality may be
independent of organized religion.

In
the face of conflicts in religious beliefs and of improper conduct between and
among believers and non-believers, there is a need to arrive at a common
understanding of what constitutes the Good. The Dalai Lama has called for
the creation of a secular code of ethics.

"All
the world's major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion,
patience, tolerance and forgiveness can and do promote inner values.
But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in
religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly
convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about
spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether."

In
response to this call, people have pointed out that there are existing
non-religious codes of ethics, such as:

The Golden Rule

The Rotary Four-Way Test

Gandhi's philosophy of
non-violence

It
must be admitted, however, that none are comprehensive.

Several
personalities - including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling,
Penn Jilette and Ted Kaczynski - have advanced alternatives to the Ten
Commandments. The first four are known critics of religion and are (or
were) atheists, and the fourth is an illusionist as well. Surprisingly,
the fifth is the American murderer known as the "Unabomber".

All
of these alternative versions are worthy of study. The principle
objection to these, in the eyes of this author, is that they do not incorporate
the principles articulated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
They propose ethical norms from a purely individual point of view.
For much of political history and theory, it has been argued and accepted
that the State is essentially amoral. The UDHR rejects this view and
advances the concept that the broader behavior of the
State vis-à-vis its citizens should be brought under the umbrella of
ethics.

Written
in 1947 and adopted in 1948, the UDHR is man's greatest cooperative ethical
achievement to date. It is a distillation of mankind's political wisdom
in all of recorded history. It is infused not only with tenets of the
Abrahamic faiths but also those of Confucianism. Consisting of a preface
and 30 articles, it is a luminous document, and foundational in its scope,
clarity and prescience.

It
is not within the purview of this essay, but the question should also be asked:
If the State must act ethically towards its citizens, should it not also act
ethically towards other States?

This
essay is an attempt at a draft for a comprehensive secular code of ethics.
Before listing the commandments of the code and discussing them, there is
one qualification and seven considerations to make.

The qualification is that the
author is a layman. He is neither a philosopher nor an ethicist.
He is an ordinary person with perhaps a slightly above-average, but
not necessarily acute, sense of the failings of men and of himself.

The
seven considerations are:

The code is more a synthesis
rather than an original work. It is a fusion and a reinterpretation
of the Abrahamic tradition, Confucianism, and the Eastern religions of
Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

The code is grounded on
humanism, on the belief that man is perfectible - if he follows the
reasons of the heart and of the mind. The reasons for its adoption
would be the Faith that the good in humanity will prevail, and the Hope
that it will. Or the Hope that the good will prevail, and the Faith
that it will.

The code is comprised of
seven normative commandments, and their corollaries, which are mostly
self-enforcing. The corollaries embrace legal constructs and
principles only to the extent that they conform to the commandments and
are consistent with the UDHR.

The ultimate goal of the code
is to develop a healthy conscience. While ethical violations may
incur legal consequences, the highest penalty that is hoped to be realized
is that of a guilty conscience. The intention is to teach, not to
frighten.

The code seeks to answer the
question of the faithless and of the faithful who are losing faith:
"What should we teach our children?"

If generally accepted, the
code can only take root through education by parents, by schools and
by society at large. Education is not only by talk but by practice,
not only by thought but by deed. The code can be formalized as a
teaching tool in Civics and Ethics classes at the primary or secondary
levels in both sectarian and non-sectarian schools.

Implicit in the code and in
its observance are the attitudes of learning and respect. These are
needed to constantly re-evaluate the code as it is used to clarify and
resolve ethical dilemmas. As envisioned, the commandments are
absolute but must be applied relatively.

The Seven Commandments of Secular Ethics

Commandment

Corollary

1. Do no harm.

1.1. This shall include not only harm to fellow human beings but to all living things and to the planet as a whole.1.2. Where conflict arises, the primacy of the individual human being shall prevail.

2. Observe the rights and freedoms of every individual.

2.1. These are established in (a) the UDHR and (b) the Constitution of your country.2.2. Where conflict arises, the UDHR shall prevail over the Constitution.

3. Observe the duties and obligations of every individual.

3.1. These are established in (a) the UDHR, (b) the Constitution of your country, and (c) the rules of your associations.3.2. Where conflict arises, preceding items in 3.1 shall prevail over succeeding items.

4. Do not lie.

4.1. Seek and know the truth.4.2. Speak only what is both true and helpful.

5. Do not steal.

6. Observe proper sexual and marital conduct.

6.1. These are established by (a) the UDHR, (b) the laws of your country, (c) your conscience and (d) your religion.6.2. Where conflict arises, preceding items in 6.1 shall prevail over succeeding items.6.3. Where the laws of the State, regarding sexual conduct only, conflict with those of Conscience, the latter shall prevail over the former.

7. Honor yourself.

7.1. Avoid substance abuse.7.2. Avoid overindulgence.7.3. Be mindful.

First Commandment - Do No Harm

This
commandment is derived from the Hippocratic Oath and the Eastern religions.
It is the equivalent of the sixth Biblical commandment of "Thou
shalt not kill".

The
virtues of this commandment are peace, humaneness, love, compassion, mercy,
forgiveness and conservation.

Strangely,
the Biblical injunction is limited to the extreme act of killing. It does
not encompass the sense of compassion and environmentalism invoked by the
Eastern religions which, as indicated in corollary 1.1, cautions against
causing hurt or injury not only to human beings but also to all living
things and to the planet itself.

From
the viewpoint of Eastern religions, man is not regarded as a sinner by nature
and is seen to be perfectible. In contrast, Christianity regards man as
endowed with Original Sin and is seen to be in need of salvation. In the
Christian cosmology, death is perceived as the gateway to the final and eternal
destinations of heaven or hell. In Eastern thought, death is transition,
and perfection can be attained within a lifetime albeit after many lives.

Also
in the Christian view, man has dominion over the earth in the same manner that
God has dominion over the Universe. In the Eastern view, man is
indivisible from nature and must live in balance and harmony with it.

The
negative form of the Golden Rule - or the Silver rule of "Do not do unto
others what you do not wish to be done unto you" - may be subsumed under
this commandment. The Golden Rule is not universally accepted because of
"differences in values and interests", such as sadomasochism as noted
by George Bernard Shaw.

The
inclusion of a conflict-resolution rule in corollary 1.2 is necessary.
Such a rule is appended to most of the other commandments. It
specifies which construct has primacy in the event of conflict. These two
examples illustrate this principle of primacy:

Man has stewardship over the
earth; animals, plants and minerals may be used in the service of his
survival.

Nations must not prosecute
internal or external wars because they are harmful to individuals.

The
UDHR does not explicitly contain this commandment, but there are Articles that
implicitly embody it such as those against slavery (Article 4) and torture
(Article 5).

With
respect to killing, there are many, many types that may be classified into four
categories.

There are types that are
generally sanctioned by the State and by law, and two of these are killing
in defense of the State and in the defense of Self.

There are types that are
countenanced by some States, but not all States, and are deeply
controversial. These include capital punishment, mercy killing,
abortion and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill.

The killing of animals for
sport is also culturally accepted as in bullfights, cockfights, dogfights
and trophy hunting. Certain species are culled to balance nature.

The
first category may be ethically justifiable as long as they are defensive in
nature. It is hard to develop a hard-and-fast rule for the second
category, and judgement may be arrived at on a case-to-case basis. The
last two categories can be said to be ethically irresponsible with the possible
exception of self-immolation, seppuku and culling.

Three
ethical guidelines to observe are:

One must not kill for a cause
or idea, but one can die for a cause. The giving of one's life is
the highest morality known to man. Giving in this sense can refer to
death or devotion.

No life is owned by another.

The fruits of the earth
should primarily be used for the basic needs of men in food, clothing and
shelter; man should not use more than he needs. He must conserve
natural resources for future generations.

Second Commandment - Human Rights and
Freedoms

This
commandment does not enumerate what are the human rights and freedoms.
These are already established in the UDHR which has been ratified and
accepted by all member nations, and which they are obligated to respect.
A secondary source is the Constitution of individual nations.

The
virtues of this commandment are righteousness, prudence and justice.

A
prerequisite of this commandment is knowledge and hopefully its application,
which is wisdom. One must know one's rights and freedoms in order to
enjoy them and to protect them.

The
Constitution of the Philippines echoes and expands the UDHR in two articles.

Article II - Declaration of
Principles and State Policies

Article III - Bill of Rights.
Note that not all nations have Bill of Rights.

With
respect to secularism and this proposed code, the freedom of religion also
embraces the freedom from religion.

It
is interesting to note that the freedom of opinion and expression as stated in
Article 19 contains the clause "regardless of frontiers."
Without doubt, the frontiers referred to here are State borders, but it
is nice to imagine that the framers had peered into the future and glimpsed of
a time when a concerned Filipino, sitting half a world away, could record his
thoughts and have them wafted across frontier-less cyberspace into the heart of
the nation. As in this very essay.

Article
19 gives us the right to criticize, as citizens of the world, the policies of
any state, even one that suppresses these very freedoms.

If
the Second Commandment mainly embodies the rules the State must observe towards
its citizens, this commandment embodies the rules that a man must observe
towards the State and towards his fellowmen. Therefore, like the Second
Commandment, it requires knowledge of these rules.

The
virtues of this commandment are reciprocity, mutual benefit, loyalty and
patriotism.

A
duty is an act a man must do, and an obligation is an act a man has been asked
to do and must fulfill. To illustrate:

Voting is a citizen's duty.

Compulsory voting is an
obligation.

This
commandment covers the duties and obligations of man in two areas:

The first area is his
participation as a citizen in the governments of the world, his country
and his local community.

The second area is his
participation as a member of non-governmental constructs, such as family,
company or an associate of organizations, including a church.

Within
the first area:

Of the 30 articles in the
UDHR, only Article 29 touches on each man's obligations to his community
and his need to respect the rights and freedoms of others.

The duties and obligations of
a citizen as outlined in the Constitution of his country may touch on the
duty of parents, of suffrage and of public office.

The duties and obligations of
government officials in each branch of government may also be outlined in
the Constitution of the country.

Note that the preamble
of the US Constitution declares as one of its aims the promotion of the
"general Welfare". And the Philippine Constitution
expressedly declares that the "prime duty of government is to serve
and protect the people." Are our officials performing their duties
and meeting their obligations?

Within
the second area:

The commandment does not lay
down the duties and obligations associated with familial roles such as
father, mother, spouse and child. The Ten Commandments itself only
mentions the role of children to parents in the Fifth Commandment of
"Honor thy father and thy mother". It is unnecessary to
include this precept in the secular code inasmuch as the concept of honor
or respect is implicit in its entirety.

In non-familial
organizations, a hierarchy of ranks and levels are established and the
duties and obligations of each rank and level are specified either
formally - for example, in an organization's charter, a company's policy
and job descriptions - or informally by common agreement.

In both familial and
non-familial duties and obligations which, for the most part, a man has
freely taken on, an attitude of delight, rather than one of sombre
observance, will immeasurably lift the heart.

Corollary
3.2 explicitly states the rules of precedence in conflict-resolution.

.

Fourth Commandment - Do Not Lie

This
commandment is almost a universal ethical imperative in all religions. It
is the equivalent of the ninth Biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The
virtues of this commandment are courage, honesty, integrity, humility,
trustworthiness, learning, knowledge and kindness.

From
the individual view, this commandment may be the hardest to follow. We
trespass it not only on a daily basis, but several times a day. It is
estimated that we lie within 3 minutes of meeting a stranger. We lie not
only to others but to ourselves often in the forms of delusion and denial.
And lying may be an act of commission or omission.

The
positive form of this norm can be seen in corollary 4.1, which is to "Seek
and know the truth". To avoid telling a lie, one must know the truth
or that whereof one speaks. Truth is the diametrical opposite of
falsehood. A simple definition of truth is that it is verified knowledge,
or that which conforms to reality.

Thus
stated, this commandment loses its humdrum interpretation of simply not
uttering falsehoods. It becomes an impetus to knowing, and the
ramifications are enormous.

It is said that the first
realization of knowledge is the state of our ignorance.

The basic stance of ignorance
is often times arrogance when it should be humility and wonder at the
mystery of life. Ignorance is the bliss of Night; knowledge the
bliss of Morn.

To overcome ignorance in
order not to lie, man must acquire knowledge and learn. Learning
leads to the wisdom of truth and perchance to the magic of beauty.

In avoiding lies and seeking
knowledge, man transforms his life into a voyage of unending discovery.

Much of the word is held in
the thrall of superstition, with the poor majority scrabbling for survival
and the rich minority scrabbling for an ease which cannot be found.

And yet in the past century,
since Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the frontiers of knowledge have
been pushed forward to afford us greater glimpses into our nature as human
beings and into the nature of the universe. There have been advances
in the study of the brain (neuroplasticity) and of consciousness
(noetics), and we have produced more accurate maps of the unimaginably
large (astronomy) and the unimaginably small (quantum physics). We
live in exciting times if only we took the trouble - or rather the
opportunity - to learn.

Corollary
4.2 derives from Buddhism and the Four-Way Test. It adds the criteria of
intention and beneficence to telling the truth. In effect, it
incorporates the primacy of the First Commandment. The intention must be
one of goodwill. And the beneficence to be considered is both the effect
on the teller and the recipient(s).

This
brings us to the issues of telling white lies or gray lies. Are white
lies permissible? If the wife asks, "Do I look fat in this
dress?" and she does, should one tell the truth? In applying
corollary 4.2, the heart must consider the intention or goal of marital accord,
and the mind the beneficence of kindness. Your kindness to your wife
gives her esteem and proof of your continuing affection; and, in turn, your
wife's kindness to you is not to commit murder, which is in violation of the
First Commandment.

Gray
lies are not permissible. They are distortions of truth, previously
referred to as propaganda and now as "spin". These are
contained in the daily output of columnists in print media and of trolls in
social media. They are unethical in their intention to manipulate people
by shading facts in the more than fifty shades of gray.

The
UDHR does not explicitly include this ethical imperative.

Fifth Commandment - Do Not Steal

Like
the Fourth Commandment, this commandment is almost a universal ethical
imperative in all religions. It is the equivalent of the eighth Biblical
commandment of "Thou shalt not steal".

The
virtues of this commandment are integrity, charity, generosity and sharing.

This
commandment and the preceding one are perhaps the most important precepts that
should be emphasized in the training of the young. If these can be fully
instilled in the minds of children, they will go a long way to diminishing the
problem of corruption in the citizen and in the government.

There
are two often-cited exceptions to the immorality of stealing:

In Islam, a man may steal
food if he is hungry. The onus is on the community to exercise and
promote social justice in such a way that no man goes hungry.

In the tale of Robin Hood, a
man may steal from the rich to give to the poor.

The
lesson to take away, as with lying and kindness, is not that stealing is
allowed or can be good, rather it is that ethics is not all "Do
Not's". It is not just avoiding doing bad deeds but, more so, doing
good deeds. And the virtues of generosity and sharing brighten our
lives immeasurably, as highlighted in the celebrations of gift-giving in all
religions and cultures, such as Christmas, Chanukah, Mawlid-al-Nabi, Lunar New
Year and Diwali.

Like
the Fourth Commandment, the UDHR does not explicitly include this ethical
imperative.

Sixth Commandment - Sexual and
Marital Conduct

This
is by far the longest of the commandments which may not be surprising.
Sex is a major preoccupation of man. One study has estimated than
men think of sex up to 388 times a day and women 140 times. And it is
mostly in this area, rather than in the preceding commandments, that religions
seem to want to control human behavior. The seventh Biblical commandment
is not all-encompassing and merely states, "Thou shalt not commit
adultery".

The
virtues of this commandment are continence and tolerance. More than these
are their fruit, which is pure and simple delight.

The
UDHR has only one provision concerning marriage and family. It is silent
on sexual conduct. There are three sub-articles in Article 16:

(1) Men
and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled
to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2)
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the
intending spouses.

(3) The
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.

With
respect to the on-going controversy surrounding same-sex marriage, the framers
may not have anticipated this issue, but the first and second sub-articles can
be interpreted to mean that such arrangements are not disallowed.
However, the third sub-article qualifies that the concept of family is
subject to the laws of the State. A number of countries have begun to
allow same-sex marriages, and may be said to be erring on the side of
liberality.

In
corollary 6.2, the State has dominion over Conscience and Religion in matters
of marital arrangements. However since sexual conduct is in the personal
domain, it may be said, as corollary 6.3 does, that Conscience has primacy
over the State and over Religion. That being said, it is a sad fact that
sexual mores differ from country to country, and that in following our natural
orientations we may be placing ourselves in legal and theological hot water.

Until 2003, a number of US
states still carried sodomy laws in their books. These antiquated
laws typically prohibited acts like oral and anal sex, which are no longer
considered to be paraphilia between consenting adults, even for same-sex
couples.

The use of artificial
contraception is a great issue with the Roman Catholic Church. True
believers should follow the tenets of their faith. Where there is
conflict between the dictates of doctrine and those of conscience, it
should be left to the individual to resolve these.

Seventh Commandment - Honor Yourself

If
the First Commandment is ethical consideration of others and of the planet, the
last and Seventh Commandment is ethical consideration of our selves. And
if the Fourth and Fifth Commandments are the ones to be primarily instilled in
the young, this commandment is the one we should practice in all our stages of
development. It is a reversal of the Golden Rule, a recognition that we
must, perhaps first and foremost, take care of ourselves in order to take care
of others and of everything around us. It calls into mind the Latin
dictum, "mens sana in corpore sano".

The
virtues of this commandment are health, temperance, cleanliness, acuity or
clear perception, and inner peace.

The
first corollary 7.1 points to the traditional substances prohibited by
religions, namely alcohol, drugs and tobacco. The term substance abuse is
used to describe addiction to these intoxicants which can take a great toll on
man's well-being - his body, his mind and his wallet. The central truth
of living may be suffering because of craving and aversion, but to use
intoxicants to salve the pain ironically increases craving for them, and
ultimately results in greater suffering.

The
law treats the use of these intoxicants in different ways.

There are no laws directly
prohibiting alcohol intake for adults, only laws that limit its effects
such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI) regulations.

Similarly, tobacco is not
directly prohibited, although laws regulating where smoking is not
permitted have mushroomed in Western countries.

Among the three, drugs are
the most prohibited substance, although the medicinal use of marijuana has
been legalized in Canada, Israel and the Czech Republic. Lately, two
states in America, Washington and Colorado, have declared marijuana to be
legal.

The
second corollary of 7.2 extends the first corollary to immoderate attachments
that would adversely affect one's health. These can include physical and
mental obsessions like gambling, watching television, viewing pornography,
video gaming, cutting and mobile phone use. And it can include
food-related compulsions like overeating, over-dieting, carbonated drinks and
even chocolates. Certain of these activities and items may not be
unhealthy in and of themselves; it is overindulgence in them that we must guard
against.

The
third and last corollary is a positive norm, and it can be said to be the
equivalent of the fourth Biblical commandment of "Remember the Sabbath
day, to keep it holy". Mindfulness has many meanings but basically
it is the attitude of focusing and unfocusing the body and the mind. It
consists of the wisdom that there is a time for everything. There is a
time to be with others for companionship, drinking, dancing and rowdy
celebration. And there is a time to be alone for introspection, silence
and quiet contemplation.

When
we are awake and engaged in an activity, we must pay attention to get the best
results; later on certain activities become automatic but when a problem arises
we need to recall attention. During the day, we must pause and take
breaks; and at the end of the day, we must pause longer in sleep.
If we are of the mind, we can listen to music, or sit still in silence or
reflect on the beauty around us - in a stone, a leaf, the shimmering sea or the
dome of stars above.

Again
like the Fourth and Fifth Commandments, the UDHR does not explicitly include
this ethical imperative.

Additional Notes

Corollaries 2.1, 3.1 and 6.1
contain the phrase "your country". This would normally
refer to the country of which you are a citizen. However the globe
has become a cluster of villages, and we sometimes work or travel outside
our villages. Thus country here may refer to your temporary physical
location. As a guest, one must observe the "When in Rome"
idiom. This is easy to say when the issue is public display of affections
in Mecca, but what about the wearing, or prohibiting the wearing of,
burqas in Paris?

A third corollary to the
First Commandment, or an Eighth Commandment, may be added to indicate the
primacy of the First Commandment. This built-in self-protective
mechanism would be similar to Article 30 of the UDHR or the third law of
Asimov's Laws of Robotics. It can be stated thus:

Where conflict arises between
or among the Commandments, the First Commandment shall prevail.

On the Second
Commandment, the UDHR covers the ethics of plagiarism in Article 27.
Much opprobrium has been heaped on Senator Tito Sotto and it would
serve him - and the people he serves - in good stead if he studied the
UDHR and acquired a modicum of ethics.

(2)
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production
of which he is the author.

With the exception of the
Fourth, the Fifth Commandment is the least observed in the Philippines.
If government officials, servants and politicians took this
commandment to heart, the country would be paradise enow.

On the Sixth Commandment:

Arguably, this Commandment
is the most preached on and the most violated by the Church. If the
clergy had observed its vows of celibacy, it would not have lost its
moral authority.

Homosexuality and
heterosexual cohabitation are socially acceptable in the Philippines.
Except for the limits imposed by the age of consent, both are legal
but frowned upon by religion.

With respect to the Seventh
Commandment, the so-called Sin Tax Bill does not control the use alcohol
or tobacco. It purportedly seeks to minimize use but more to
increase government revenue from them.

Summary

Is man
perfectible? The answer has to be in the affirmative. There are men
who died for their country, like Jose Rizal. There are men who lived
for their country, like Jesse Robredo. And there are men who gained
the whole world and did not lose their souls, like Bill Gates.

Should
religions follow the Seven Commandments of Secular Ethics? Again,
the answer must be Yes. All the commandments, except the Second and
the Third, are based on religion. The author suspects that if men of
the cloth observed these rules of secular ethics, they would become better
messengers of their respective faiths.

If the
Seven Commandments of Secular Ethics can be summed up in one word, that
word would be Respect. It is all about Respect. Respect for
life and for the earth, for the rights and freedom of others, for our
duties and obligations, for truth and knowledge, for the property of
others, for sexual and marital relationships, and for the self.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

"Our Father, we gather here today to honor Your Work on
earth, a work that is partly done, and which you have left for us, free of
will, to complete. You remain a Mystery to us, and that is what excites us
about this day. Today is a day for decisions. We must make them well, because
we know You trust us to act in dignity and honor.

We are excited to know that You have set before us a grand
puzzle, intricate of design, dangerous in places, safe and secure in others. A
challenge, for sure.

It is up to us to think well as Your Children, to chose among
the many paths available to us to find the one that is wholesome, the one that
is enriched with kindness toward others.

We ask for Your Patience as we consider our choices. We want
to choose well.

In Your Name we pray,

Amen"

Today
I would like to speak about choices. About the decisions we make. About how we
deal with the good and the bad outcomes of our decisions.

Let's
turn to James in the New Testament of
the Bible, Chapter 3, starting with verse 13.
For those Jews, Muslims, atheists or other believers and non-believers shifting uncomfortably in the pews, please consider this a secular reading, as
if God were simply the Goodness in your heart. We are not really interested in
the politics of religion, but in the meanings we can draw from the thoughtful
words we read in this great book of wisdom and confusion. I will offer brief
interpretive remarks at the end of each verse. The verses are short, so this
won't take long at all.

3:13 Who is
a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good
conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

If you are wise and
knowledgeable and engage in discussions with others, display the quiet
confidence a wise man would choose.

3.14 But if
ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not
against the truth.

If you act out of envy or
anger, take care not to go against truth.

3:15 This
wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

For this kind of wisdom is
sure to cause problems.

3:16 For
where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

Envy and anger create bad
will and bad acts.

3:17 But
the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and
easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality,
and without hypocrisy.

But wisdom from the goodness
of our hearts is gentle and easy to convey, filled with mercy and kindness
and truth unshaded by deceit or need.

3:18 And
the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Good will is created by those
who speak in peace, sincerely.

So
given this guidance, how might we approach our daily decisions?

A
decision is a choice of paths we will take, or cause others to take. Some
decisions are small. Should I wear red or blue today? Some are large. Should I
get married or not?

Some
decisions are easy. Should I put cheese in the Spaghetti sauce or not? Some are
hard. Should I buy that property or not?

Some
are beyond difficult. Should I file for annulment? Have another baby? Have an
abortion? Shoot and kill the enemy soldier I see on the ridge over there? They test our emotions, test our thinking,
test our conscience.

And
once we have made a decision, we have changed the course of mankind. We have
set in motion a set of events or responses from the trivial to the extreme. One
act begets another. And we do not always get the result we expected or wanted:

"You
look sickly in that blue dress."

"You
idiot, I'm allergic to cheese!"

"You
want an annulment? You can have it, but I'm keeping the kid!"

When
we make a decision that causes a reaction we did not foresee, what do we
typically do?

We
explain ourselves. We make sure others are aware of our rational thought
process, our good intentions, our innocence.

"Don’t' call me an idiot, you twit. How am I supposed to
know you are allergic to cheese? I always put cheese in the sauce."

We
seldom confess that maybe we could have done a better job thinking this
through. Our credibility, our credentials, have been undermined by criticism.
We start nailing planks every which way to shore up our standing.

Why
do we feel this relentless need to justify ourselves? To explain, to make
excuses? To blame?

Are
we not violating the instruction of James 3:14, are we not going against the
truth? Going against it by spinning the decision, by shifting responsibility
for it, for failing to acknowledge it was, after all, OUR decision, OUR act.

No,
my brothers and sisters, when we weasel out of the results of our acts, try to
sneak away in the bright light of day, we are shaping a new truth, and it is
dishonest.

This
is the troublesome kind of decision we are warned against in James 3:15. The
earthly choice rather than the heavenly choice. We choose strife. We choose the
deceits of self-justification.

When
we chose the dishonest path, the blame, the excuse, we build a reality that is
warped by lies and mistruths. And decisions and acts that flow from those
mistruths are themselves flawed. We have contributed to the building of a
monster, Satan's delight, a reality built on fabrication.

On some days, we call it Senate.

No,
no, my friends.

It
is important to build our decisions and our acts on truth, lest our whole world
become a lie.

Our
institutions are the work of many men and women. Our government and its
agencies. Our churches. Our businesses. Our schools.

How
many of them are built on the rock of truth? On the foundation of integrity?

How
many are built on the sands of fabrication, mistruths aimed, not at promoting
honest solutions, but self-serving acts? How many are built on the earthly
corruptions of small man rather than the heavenly glory of honorable man?

We should demand honesty, for
it is good.

We should demand integrity,
for it is good.

We should demand
accountability without shame, or blame, or excuse, for it is good.

So
think about this as you go forth to make your decisions today. And the next day. And accept the results of your decisions forthrightly after they have settled in and changed the
way of our world forever.

Claim your decisions with courage and honor, without fear or regret or shame. Claim them with all the Goodness of your heart.

Let
us close in prayer.

Thank you oh Conscience Pure, the Heaven in my heart.

You guide us through light and dark, You give us vision of
the riches of our troubled Eden, the world about.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Ellen
Tordesillas is actually not my friend. I don't know her. Never met her. But she
is a blogging colleague, sincere in her work, pro-Philippines day and night.
Her heart is good. She writes about opera and the passing of good people. I
read her blog regularly.

But I fear she has gone anti. Anti Aquino.

What
does "anti" mean? It means packing an agenda, with the agenda being
the lens through which facts are digested and commentary is spewed.

I've
written in the past that it is easy to drift to the negative ("Bemoan
or Build"). We all tend to look at the flaws rather than the things
that are in order. We are removed from the playing field so have a rather
sanitized, unreal view about activity that is dirty, unplanned and
bone-crunching.

Her
blog is called, simply, "ellen tordesillas".
What is disturbing to me is the opening line in her self-description:

"I'm Ellen Tordesillas,
a journalist."

Ellen's
second site, "The Vera Files",
touts itself as an investigative journalism site where "Truth is Our
Business".

Advisory

I do
not provide links to Ellen Tordesilla's blog sites because my Google Chrome security service on November 23 advised me
that "The Vera Files" issues
malware harmful to computers. I
suspect the sites are under attack by hackers, as her comment thread has also been knocked
out of order.

Hmmmmm.
I thought there was a difference between a journalist and a commentator. Now
journalists are entitled to opinions, too. But those opinions ought to be
clearly separated from the business of reporting the facts about events.

Here
are Ellen's recent headlines and opening lines on articles about President
Aquino:

"PH should face up to the reality 'When China rules the world' "

"When President Aquino was making waves in the summit of Asean leaders and their dialogue partners in Cambodia with his statement urging the United States to speak up on the South China Sea conflict which was anathema to China . . ." (November 22)

"Aquino living up to the role of U.S. dummy

"In a
United States-written script, President Aquino performed his role very
well as the American dummy in Southeast Asia at the 21st Asean summit in
Cambodia." (November 20)

"Aquino berating media is becoming boring"

"Why
am I not surprised that the Freedom of Information bill in the House of
Representatives has been declared dead in the 15th Congress by press
freedom advocates? Simple: President Aquino does not support it. (November
15)

"Concrete evidence, not snide remarks, needed to convict
Gloria"

"The
day that President Aquino talks about his accomplishments without snide
remarks at Gloria Arroyo, is the day I can say that he has matured as a
leader of this country. As of now, his penchant for snide remarks about
people he doesn’t like gives the impression of being juvenile." (November 7)

"Edith Burgos on Aquino’s ‘leftist propaganda’ remark"

"Still
searching for her missing son, Edith Burgos, wife of press freedom icon
Jose Burgos Jr. and mother of Jonas Burgos, who was never seen since he
was abducted by persons suspected to be members of the military on April
28, 2007, issued a statement yesterday in reaction to President Aquino’s
remark dismissing criticisms about the dismal human rights records of his
administration as leftist propaganda." (October 25)

"Making sure we got the President correctly on internet
libel"

"This
is what President Aquino said at the forum of the Foreign Correspondents
Association in the Philippines Wednesday on internet libel in the
Cybercrime Law which he signed last Sept. 1." (October 18)

"PNoy, Padaca don’t get it"

"What
is it in being in position of power that dulls the mind and blurs the
comprehension of people we thought were sensible?" (October 7)

"If PNoy believes Puno’s Israel trip story, pity the Filipino
people"

"I
wish President Aquino would stop talking about “tuwid na daan” anymore.
It’s adding insult to injury with the way he protected Rico Puno, his
shooting buddy whom he appointed undersecretary in the Department of
Interior and Local Government. He accepted Puno’s resignation last Sept.
11." (September 16)

"Pnoy
inducts his shooting buddy. After days of deafening silence on the issue
of his favorite undersecretary,Rico Puno,in-charge of police matters at
the Department of Interior and Local Government,attempting to get hold of
the documents in the possession of the late Interior Secretary Jesse
Robredo, President Aquino finally spoke and revealed that it was upon his
orders that Puno did it." (September 9)

Now
I have absolutely no problem with opinions being registered on a blog site. But
I have trouble with opinions being registered as "journalism" and I
have trouble with agenda being labeled objective.

If
I follow the articles, I am to believe that President Aquino did absolutely
nothing constructive for the Philippines during the three month period from
which these headlines were drawn. Instead, I am to believe that he is
characterized by:

" Deafening
silence" (about a delicate issue).

"Adding insult to
injury" (because he did not agree with critics of Puno or their
recitation of events).

"Being dull of mind with
blurred comprehension" (because he advocated Padaca, a feminine
Robredo, for a COMELEC position).

"Having a dismal human
rights record" (because he disagrees with those who think he is doing
nothing about extra-judicial murders).

"Being snide and
juvenile" (because he did a funny wheelchair joke at Gloria Arroyo's
expense).

"Being a dummy"
(for advocating international engagement in the West China Sea rather than
China's bilateral engagement strategy).

"Making waves" (for advocating US engagement "in anathema" to China)

I'd
swear I'm on Get Real Post, that
manipulative, agenda freak of a blog site that bans readers who have opposing
views. The notorious thug-site that encourages personal insults against
commenters who disagree.

And
I actually agree, as a highly opinionated blogger myself, with some of the
opinions Ellen Tordesillas registers. But where are the accolades when the
President gets it right? Where is the balanced weighing of two sides of a
controversial issue before rendering judgment?

These
articles are hack jobs.

I
can't imagine a patriotic Filipino not being proud of President Aquino's work
at the ASEAN summit. First of all, he was sick as a dog, but pulled himself out
of bed to get to this important confab. Second of all, he did not roll over to
Cambodia's "consensus" statement, which was nothing more than a sly
political move to try to push the Philippines and Viet Nam aside. Only
President Aquino had the forthright courage to stand firm and state the
Philippines did not agree to the Cambodian "consensus" statement.

For
this, he is called a "dummy"?

You
want him to roll over and accede to China, say so. Articulate why.

I no longer trust the objectivity of this "journalist" right now. Ten articles. Two neutral. Eight critical. Zero complimentary. Lots of unkind, loaded words.

The trend of criticism of the President is so pronounced, that I have determined the correct placement of the blog on The Philippine Blog Centeris with other "anti" blogs like Get Real Post. It is not necessarily a permanent assignment, as I review these blogs regularly to see if they have gone mainstream. But that seems to be the proper assignment.

I
am also moving the blog "The Nutbox" to the mainstream
"Top Blog" column. This blog does not have frequent commentary, but
what is there is superior in form and content, and it is intellectually
honorable. The writing is from the perspective of a younger Filipino and points
in a direction that Philippine blogging would be well served aspiring to: intelligent, objective and devoid of emotional "win/lose" esteem battles.